The artist creates the audience evaluates.
Exception to the rule: An artist has an idea,a conceptual work. He brings his idea to the local Museum of Contemporary art. He convinces a panel or administrator that he would like to have a show of nothing. He is granted his wish.
On opening night the gallery fills with people but it is empty except for a discription of the artist and his intent. His intent is to show that nothing can be art. The cheese and wine don't count by the way.
I have a feeling that this has probably been done somewhere. (empty picture frames) At any rate it is fun to look at absolutes and then try to find holes.
Some philosophers and physicists may argue that even nothing is something and in this case, nothing is something. Nothing is the art. This is the "art experience" with intention and an audience.
As I mentioned earlier in another thread my intentions are often ambiguous. The reason is because I use symbols and these symbols are not preconcieved. To me an ambiguous intention in art is another way of saying that the artist desires to create mysteries.
Can you imagine an early Surreal Bob Dylan explaining his intentions to his audience. Each listener goes away from the experience with a personal understanding (or confusion). If Dylan told me what his lyrics meant I would lose interest. I have read a book on the meaning behind the song "Like A Rolling Stone" by someone other than Dylan and found it interesting but I really don't want to know what Bob has to say. The mystery would be gone.
Do we really want to know the magician's secrets?
Understanding the artist's intention is not the same as needing the artist explain what the work means. If you understand that Bob Dylan is an artist who touches on the deeper mysteries of life in his music you don't need each song disected word by word.
Art is a colaboration between the artist and the viewer. Work that is not presented is never born.
Perhaps the object which is created by the artist is not shared and only exists as a result of the end process. Perhaps it is discarded. The experience, that transcendant experience, however is real and if the object is missing, the experience isn't.
There may be no "work of art" shared but there has been a working of art, important only to the artist, for whatever reasons.
Art is born in the presentation.
And inherent in the decision to "present" (an artwork) is the intention to induce some reaction or other on the part of the viewer.
No art object shared, nothing considered a work of art, thus no artist. The no show image maker, however alone she may be, has had the art experience regardless.
Has this ever taken place - improbable, but not impossible. Must one show there work to be an artist? If no, than there must be a work of art. Just a little humor here.
Have you ever been on a deserted beach, gathered debry - stones, sticks etc. and built a sculpture at low tide? Or perhaps you just grabbed a stick and began drawing in the sand because of an impulse to make something. Maybe by chance a passer by will see it but maybe not. Soon it will vanish.
I have a video of Andrew Goldworthy building temporary sculptures in various nature settings, and they are absolutely marvelous. I realize he videotapes and photographs much of what he does but I am not so certain that he does this with everything he does. I also am aware of his more permanent work.
When considering an artist building something when all alone and knowing it will not be shared and most likely destroyed what do we call the object? I think it goes beyond calling it a study.
The creative act is a moment in time, called the present, and it is a thoughtful action based on the intelligence of an intuitive designer. It is without logic. It clearly is a driven act. It may create joy in the creator.
Perhaps we are beating this subject to death but I still enjoy it.
I have always wondered how you arrived at your definition for something to be considered a work of art. Could it be that you came to this conclusion on your own? Did you discover this from a class you were in or teacher you had? Where can one find this definition other than from you?
I am asking from an honest and sincere interest?
What good would a Pollock be if it was not placed for people to look at it and see the action of the artist in the pools of paint?
What good would a Dali be without an audience to step into his dreamworld?
What good would a Kahlo be without an audience there to experience her pain and feelings?
It would just be another piece of artwork in an artists studio silenced. I have never believed when artists state that they are happy just creating, they create because they have something to say. I agree with Dan, however art does not have to have an audience. A successful piece of art has to have an audience.
I did get a bit off topic, sorry about that. Read in one of the posts that sparked my interest.
I still have to agree with Dan though in taking his initial statement. It still goes back to why create if you don't want someone to see it. Art is meant to be seen, but again, it would be hard to discredit any artwork as not being art if it is not seen.
I didn't help much to the debate. ;-)
Back to Category
Reply
